The Forum > Article Comments > What do popular votes mean in the USA? > Comments
What do popular votes mean in the USA? : Comments
By Don Aitkin, published 5/3/2021No one in American history has won more votes than Donald Trump did last November, save for Joe Biden, who won over 81 million popular votes.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 5 March 2021 9:44:34 AM
| |
Struth this comment keeps being trotted out and it is just inane.
“No one in American history has won more votes than Donald Trump did last November, save for Joe Biden,” The population of the US increases each bloody election. What should be measured is what percentage of the population the vote represents. Trumps vote was 22.5%. You just have to go back to Regan to see higher. He got 23.1%. Biden on the other hand was a clear standout reaching the highest percentage of the population of any candidate ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections#/media/File:US_Vote_for_President_as_Share_of_Population.png Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 5 March 2021 12:52:47 PM
| |
More interesting than Don's insights on US politics
is Don's insights into young, climate concerned, swinging voters in Australia. With Craig Kelly moving to the crossbench I think I'm right in saying the Morrison Coalition only clings to Power by its wafer-thin 1 seat majority in the House of Reps. Meaning: 1. another Coalition member moving to the crossbench could mean a change of Government to Labor 2. a Byelection, could by deadly for the Morrison Coalition if such a Byelection goes Labor's way OR 3. a Coalition member moving to Labor would automatically trigger a Labor Government. SENATOR Reynolds standing down is less serious as that doesn't directly effect the one seat House majority. BUT if Porter MP retires early triggering a Byelection that could be dangerous territory for the Morrison Coalition. This is even if Porter's seat appears safely Liberal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Pearce#Election_results Poor ScoMo must be sh!ting bricks. Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 5 March 2021 3:03:34 PM
| |
Aitkin wrote: "not because I think there was anything suss in the outcome, though there might have been (see Time magazine's expose here)"
I've mentioned the Time article several times on these pages but to no avail. I'm not sure if its because its long and complex and therefore beyond the scope of most here, or because it tells a story that most would prefer to not be true and/or not know about. So quite apart from evidence of fake absentee ballots and clandestine ballot drops away from prying eyes, the revelations of those in the Time article shows a conspiracy to rig the election. Add that the media/big tech conspiracy to suppress harmful facts and its clear the election was the opposite of free and fair. Had all this happened in some South American nation, the US would be calling the election tainted and imposing sanctions left, right and centre. So the take from that is that although Biden had 81 millions added to his tally, we'll never know how many votes he actually got. The Democrats (now there's a misnomer) are now trying to formalise the rule subversions that allowed all this to happen so that it can happen each election. That's why I opined a while back that Trump may become known as the last democratically elected president of a once great democracy. Posted by mhaze, Friday, 5 March 2021 3:17:16 PM
| |
As to Aitkin's main point, being the potential rise of a third force, that is much more likely in the US than here.
Trump represented a rejection of the leadership of the Republican Party. Nonetheless, despite rejecting the policies of that party, he was able to rise to become its leader by appealing to the base over the heads of the leaders. So the pro-blue collar, America First policies that Trump espoused and that carried him to the White House, were anathema to the Republican leadership but beloved (and still beloved) by the base. The upshot is that, in the US, the third force has already taken over the Republican party and the older leadership of the Bushes, McConnell, Ryan and Cheney is in retreat. They are now the third force. That can't happen in Australia. Its impossible for an outsider to come in an take over a party as Trump did. The closest example we have is Hawke, but he was of the party and still had to wait his turn having moved on the leadership. Additionally his positions weren't really all that radical, at least not when he first took over. For someone, irrespective of how charismatic or well-known/well-liked, it would still require years to achieve change. They'd have to get preselection, then election, then do time on the back-bench, then stab a few backs. By which time they'd be thoroughly tainted by the process. Because of our electoral system, the chances of a third party gaining traction is low. There's been plenty of attempts - Chipp's Democrats, the Greens, the 'browns', Katter, LDP, etc. None gets traction past 15-20% at best. The next decade or so is going to be bad, very bad for Australia. Only at the end of that will people be so open to a radical agenda that they'll be prepared to move in large numbers from one or other of the major parties. Posted by mhaze, Friday, 5 March 2021 3:35:51 PM
| |
The Yanks are making a huge mistake aping the Australian Left's mentality !
Posted by individual, Friday, 5 March 2021 6:57:31 PM
|
OLO's Trumpets, for a blissful month have been a tad quiet.
This will draw them out from their wabbit holes.